Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

Search This Blog

Needles in a Haystack

Earlier this week, the National Academy of Sciences held a public meeting to discuss the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's request for a study of cancer risk in populations living near nuclear power plants. According to the NRC's announcement, the purpose of the study is to update a similar 1990 study by the National Cancer Institute. During the April 26 meeting, the NAS's Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board heard recommendations from representatives of government, industry and public interest groups. (An audio recording of the meeting is available here. A fellow blogger's summary is available here.)

NEI was among the organizations invited to address the NRSB. NEI's Senior Director, Radiation Safety and Environmental Protection, Mr. Ralph Andersen, a Certified Health Physicist, spoke on the challenges facing the NRSB. In his remarks, Mr. Andersen shared the perspective of the Health Physics Society, the association of radiation protection professionals, on epidemiological studies of this nature. The HPS says that:

"Studies of...occupationally and environmentally exposed populations...are useful in addressing allegations of adverse health effects in the population and in demonstrating a concern for the health of the exposed people. However, unless they are sufficiently powerful, they do not add to the scientific knowledge of low dose effects."

The key term is "sufficiently powerful". The HPS is referring to the statistical power needed to discern changes in the incidence of cancer.

According to the National Research Council, on average 42 out of 100 people - nearly half - will be diagnosed with cancer during their lifetime [Note 1]. With so many people contracting cancer throughout the population, the statistician's challenge is to determining when changes in that "natural background" occurrence of cancer are meaningful. As the focus of the study shrinks to smaller and smaller groups, the statistical challenge of distinguishing random variations from meaningful differences grows more difficult. When the focus is on the population around one or a handful of power plants, it becomes extremely difficult to discern meaningful differences. A very accessible description of the problem is provided at RadiationAnswers.org.

We welcome the NRC's request for this study and applaud the NRSB for taking this on. In shaping the scope and methods of its study, we hope and trust that the NRSB will heed the advice of the Health Physics Society. As we learn more about the NRSB study, we will do our part to help the public and policymakers understand the complexities of gauging the impacts of nuclear power plants on their environs.

[NEI welcomes] the NRC's request for this study and applaud[s] the NRSB for taking this on.

The audio webcast, however, displays you (or your namesake if you're not Paul himself) in full FUD mode. Instead of attempting to offer any relevant comments on the study, you attacked NRSB Chairman Meserve for what you percieve as bias, even after he started the session by clearly stating the board would not be doing the study nor would it decide the makeup of the experts who'd eventually do the work.

But seriously. Why don't they propose a study on radiation-induced cancer around windfarms? Because it's known that they don't expose anyone to any radiation, perhaps?

Well..., the same is known for nuclear plants. The areas around plants are extensively monitored for radiation (which is extremely easy to measure), and it is known, with complete confidence, that no local residents are getting more than 0.1% of what they get from natural sources.

Meanwhile, due to variations in background, we have millions of people in certain parts of the country that get several times the average exposure, and there is no evidence of increased cancer incidence in those populations.

Based on the above, it is clear, and known, that the populations around nuclear plants are not getting any significant exposure, that could possibly cause any significant health effects. Just like those around wind farms. If any increases are seen around any plants, it is clearly due to some other agent, or a statistical fluke.

What do they hope to accomplish with this study? They seem to be just looking at statistics, and not asking if there is any agent that could possibly cause the effects in question. Bottom line is that it is known that there isn't any. Not radiation, anyway. Correlation does not prove causation.

Based on people's reactions in news reports, all this seems to be accomplishing is telling the public that scientists are still "not sure" if nuclear plants are having a health impact. Nothing could be further from the truth. Why are we continuing to study a long-settled question, whose (obvious) answer has been known for a long time?

Popular posts from this blog

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.